BOO!!!
Posted on 10/25/2006 2:52:34 PM PDT by pogo101
After some of us began to ask which part of the war on terrorism Democrats support, Larry Kudlow put the question directly to Rep. Barney Frank on CNBC's "Kudlow & Company." Frank said: "What part of the war on terrorism do I support? I voted for war in Afghanistan."
On "60 Minutes" last Sunday night, aspiring House speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced the war in Iraq as not "part of the war on terror." The war on terror, she said "is the war in Afghanistan."
So that's it. The one part of the war on terror — or "so-called war on terror," as New York Times so-called columnist Bob Herbert calls it — Democrats even pretend to support is the war in Afghanistan.
Immediately after the attacks of 9/11, Democrats had no choice but to vote in favor of that war — of any war. (Save one member of Congress — guess which party? Answer: Rep. Barbara Lee, Democrat, of California.)
If Bush had gone to war with Iraq immediately after 9/11 and waited to attack Afghanistan, Democrats would now be pretending to support the Iraq war while pointlessly carping about Afghanistan. Afghanistan didn't attack us on 9/11! The Taliban didn't attack us! What's our exit strategy? How do you define "victory" in Afghanistan, anyway? It's a quagmire — aahhhhh!
The beauty of Democrats' pretending to be hawks on Afghanistan is that most people can't remember what liberals said five minutes after they said it, much less five years later.
In fact, during the brief five weeks it took American forces to take Kabul and send the Taliban scurrying, liberals were not the flag-waving patriots they would have us believe.
In October 2001, Sen. Joe Biden gave a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations saying that America's air war in Afghanistan made the United States look like "this high-tech bully that thinks from the air we can do whatever we want to do."
Four weeks before U.S. troops completely vanquished the Taliban, Kim Jong Il's pal, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, said on CNN's "Capital Gang" that the Taliban would not soon be toppled. He cited his experience with the Taliban, saying: "I think they can hold on for a while. They were very resilient."
Howard Dean joined Michael Moore in arguing that Osama bin Laden was innocent until proved guilty.
Except for a few idiots like Biden, Richardson and Dean, most politicians — who have to run for election — duly voted in favor of the war in Afghanistan and let their mouthpieces in the media bash it for them. (Remember: A lot of them voted for war in Iraq, too.)
Democrats who would not have to face voters — we call them "reporters" — were calling Afghanistan a "quagmire" approximately six minutes after we invaded.
Thomas Ricks, the Washington Post reporter who currently has a book out saying the war in Iraq is not succeeding, also said the war in Afghanistan was not succeeding.
On Oct. 27, 2001, Ricks said this about Afghanistan — not Iraq: "Although there is little evidence — yet — that the U.S. approach is succeeding, officials at the Pentagon and the White House said yesterday that they are sticking with their original strategy."
Our boys had taken Kabul before Ricks' article hit the recycling bin.
The media gave us gleeful reports on friendly fire incidents in Afghanistan, incessant body counts, numbers of civilian dead and polls showing that the rest of world hated us. Christiane Amanpour reported on CNN in February 2002 that "77 percent of those (Muslims) interviewed said the U.S. war in Afghanistan was morally unjustifiable." The Muslim world hates us — because of the war Democrats claim to support.
In an Oct. 27, 2001, column titled "How to Lose a War," New York Times columnist Frank Rich wrote that the Taliban "are proving Viet Cong-like in their intractability." He stated categorically that "we're losing that battle for Afghan hearts and minds" — proving Rich to be as competent a military analyst as any longtime New York Times theater critic could reasonably be expected to be.
Say, when is the Times going to hire generals to review the latest Broadway offerings? I think more people would like to read Tommy Franks' review of "Rent" than Frank Rich's review of a war.
Times columnist Maureen Dowd, more macho than Rich, asked: "Are we quagmiring ourselves again?" Apparently so. She cited Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem's denial that we were getting bogged down in Afghanistan as "a sure sign we're getting bogged down."
In October 2001, on ABC News' "World News Tonight," anchor Peter Jennings asked Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan: "Do you believe that the United States is possibly facing a quagmire in Afghanistan?"
The first time liberals had a kind word for the war in Afghanistan was when they needed to pretend to support some war in order to attack the war in Iraq with greater vigor. To get them to support the Iraq war, all we have to do is attack Iran.
US Civil War II....time to throw out the media, democrats, and liberals...send them to Cuba and Venezuala, two countries they dearly love and support....
Big F****n Homerun, Annie. Her best in months.
Don't forget what Nancy Pelosi said about Osama, "he's a nice guy who builds roads and hospitals and infrastruture to better the lives of his people in Afghanistan."
They've all at one point or another thrown their support for terroristism out there for all to see.
That was Patty Murray
Was it? Darn, my bad. It's hard to keep track of all the back stabbing the RATS do to this nation.
EGADS! Don't do that!
Coulter Bump!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Good article. Thanks.
Times columnist Maureen Dowd, more macho than Rich, asked ...
Bwahahahaahahahahahahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Say... that might work...
Times columnist Maureen Dowd
Her Book is on the 35% off pile at Barnes and Noble
She doesn't need a Man, Because She can't keep a Man.
Leftist Hags are Repugnant!
Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner!
If our military had been allowed to bomb Hanoi, invade North Viet Nam and stop the source of munitions, and NVA personnel from resuppling the Southern resistance... that war would have come to a very different conclusion...
The same can be said of what we must do to win in the Middle East...Take out Tehrans ability to resupply Iraq with munitions and Shihite warriors that are flooding Iraq this very day.
Not only would this sharply shorten the battle for Iraq, it would have the side benefit of stopping Iran's quest for nuclear weaponry...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.